>Nathan writes:
>
>
> >Bizarre. Capitalist forces don't know what's good for them according to
> >Rakesh.
>
>Clinton knows that Sweeney's mobilisation of a protectionist threat is very
>good for imperialist forces at the bargaining table; that's why he is
>treating him with such respect. Are you intentionally missing my point?
I don't quite get this. How does having Sweeney push for labor rights promote the TRIMs/TRIPs agenda? Sweeney wants to make MNC investment in places like China more difficult; TRIMs & TRIPs would make it easier. My reading of this is that Clinton wants to make sure labor goes all out for Gore, and needs to placate them a bit. No doubt they'll fall for it, and in the unlikely event Gore becomes president, he'd betray them.
>This is rather vague. At any rate, of course Sweeney believes should have
>access to our markets as long as the US can 'lower other countries' trade
>barriers', viz. adopt US property rights and investment regimes, for which
>his candidate Gore is fighting. The quoted part is the AFL-CIO's own stated
>goal.
Not exactly. U.S. unions are no fans of U.S. labor markets, while the U.S. position in trade negotiations is that other countries should make their labor markets more like ours.
>It comes down not to goals but concrete proposals. The only real proposal
>in that speech is debt reduction which may just be a call for another Baker
>Plan.
How do you know this? The AFL-CIO's chief economist, Tom Palley, is a left Keynesian, who, for all the shortcomings of that position, is still no Bakerian austerity/dereg hound.
> >Where Sweeney says, "At the AFL-CIO, we know that we have to deepen our own
> >growing internationalism, and develop new sophistication in bargaining and
> >organizing across national lines",
>
>Nothing concrete here.
It's a speech, for heavens sake.
>Yes, I am against US social protection which I don't think would save many
>American jobs anyways--not to say that it is a progressive goal to even
>operate in such terms. You haven't even defended the Harkin BIll in terms
>of its progressive impacts. If you don't stand by that, why do you think
>these standards will have better effects?
>
>And for all the reasons I have stated, this clamoring for eco-labor
>standards that the US capitalist state will then defend on behalf of US
>labor in WTO fora should not be a priority for US labor based on its own
>interests.
What should they do instead?
>Where has Sweeney's said that? Or expressed opposition to the US backed
>TRIM regime? Nathan, you must know that a lot of the rest of the world
>thinks that this Sweenyite threat of social protection to which Clinton has
>accorded respect is a transparent attempt for the US to continue to
>monopolize the bargaining chips in trade negotiations.
Third World elites hold this position, as do the editors of The Economist. Third World unions don't. Which side do you come down on?
Rakesh, the AFL-CIO is flawed enough without attributing to them positions even worse than the ones they actually hold.
Doug